Tuesday, April 24, 2012

I was reading Ashley Love's account of her time at the GLAAD Media Awards, and a few thoughts occurred to me. It is important to keep the focus on the real issues. Gender fascists like "Cristan" Williams, and "Autumn" Sandeen basically try to present "transgender" as an objective fact, obfuscating the very real truth that it is actually a socio-political movement that is basically a rebellion against the norms of society. Further, they try to obscure the fact that transsexualism is a subjective medical condition that exists apart from both political and social viewpoints.

Transgender has increasingly become about things like gender deconstruction. Now, as a transsexual, I see the very idea of gender deconstruction as basically an attack on the reality of my condition. It simply does not fit with my experiences. I do not share the political and social ideology that has brought some to that point of view, and to be quite blunt, I think it is pure crap. So, why would I remotely wish to be subsumed into such a movement? And yet, this is exactly what the gender fascists demand that I must accept. Their view is, you are transgender because, well, because we say you are transgender.

The problem, again, is transgender is not an objective concept. It is an identity. For example a person might be a certain race (an objective fact) they might also identify with a specific culture associated with that race (highly subjective). Transsexualism is a medical condition, an objective fact. Transgender is an identify, which is subjective. A person can be a transsexual and identify as transgender. But a person is not automatically transgender, just because they are a transsexual.

Of course, this is highly objectionable to people like Mr. WIlliams, and Mr. Sandeen. They cannot abide the idea that someone who is transsexual (something neither actually is) might not accept the label of transgender. They are both at odds with society as a whole, engaging in a sort of bizarre gender rebellion, that they expect others to join. The rather odd thing is, it is apparent that they do not even realize just how totally obnoxious and distasteful they are to a lot of people. Nor do I think they care.

No, in spite of what Mr. Williams' wishes to claim, the movement to separate transsexualism from transgender continues, and is, perhaps, stronger than ever.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Well, it seems that the leading gender fascist, "Cristan" Williams is absolutely frantic that Ashley Love stood up to GLAAD over their abuse of transsexual people. Ms. Love held a rally to protest how GLAAD portrays transsexuals in their media guide. Mr. Williams, who tends to completely lose it anytime anyone declines to be called "transgender" responded rather furiously.

To be honest, there is really not much to say here. Mr. Williams provides his usual lame argument...."transgender" has been around a long time, long proud history, Christine Jorgensen once called herself "transgender," etc.

A bit of a yawn...

Kudos to Ashley Love for standing up to Mr. Williams. He really doesn't grasp how much of a joke he is becoming.

Update: Since I wrote this article this morning, I happened to check in on Mr. Williams' website and I discovered that Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen had posted one of his typical self-aggrandizing pieces about how he had been at the GLAAD awards, and how Ashley Love had attended the awards dinner. Apparently this caused both Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams some upset. Not to mention the fact that the GLAAD people were apparently in a near panic that Ms. Love might actually exercise her right to free speech and say something they did not approve of.

Once again we see how the "transgender" extremists feel an amazing compulsion to control both speech and people's thoughts. If you do not follow their party line, then they feel you must be crushed and hopefully silence. Insane, and more than a bit unnerving.

I might add, kudos to Ashley Love for having such a terrifying effect on those who seek to oppress anyone who does not wish to be forced into a certain mindset.

Yet Another Update: Well, it seems that Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams are beside themselves over the very idea that Ashley Love might actually have had some influence at the GLAAD event. Mr. Williams is desperately trying to deny that Ashley might have actually distributed any materials within the event (as she claims on her web site) and, well, Mr. Sandeen just has the vapors over the whole thing. I mean, just imagine, Ashley Love actually speaking to people about a view that is not vetted and approved according to the official gender fascist party line. Now, we can't have that, can we?

Oh, and uh, a clue for the "I'm shocked, shocked...." Mr. Sandeen....Ashley Love does not buy into your nonsense and she is exercising her right to disagree with you, and GLAAD. Get over it, get used to it.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Sometimes the transgender extremists come up with some pretty silly stuff. The latest is the complaint that "transgender" voters will be disenfranchised by voter ID laws. That is truly absurd.

Personally, given the high degree of voter fraud in some states, I think photo ID laws are a good thing. I live in San Francisco, where there were considerable complaints about possible fraud in the most recent election where a candidate backed by the "moderate" (i.e. right wing) faction may have received fraudulent votes in Chinatown. Of course, since the moderate faction also controls the DA's office, no one is really expecting much to be done about this.

The transgender extremists are whining that it is difficult for them to obtain IDs that match their "gender identity." This is ridiculous. Yes, some states will not change the sex marker (the TG kooks want to call it a gender marker) on a license until after surgery. So what? Is it not better to have a license that reflects one's legal name and has a recent photo while in transition? Oh wait, we are talking transgender, not transsexuals. They often want to play around. They don't necessarily want to commit to one identity, or the other.

In truth, this has nothing to do with transgender people being denied the right to vote (they should either get their ID updated, or present in a manner consistent with their ID) and everything to do with transgender extremists trying to create an issue where none really exists in order to support those who wish to insure that voter fraud is easily committed.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

I was taking a glance at my blogs statistics after last week's hoopla about Mr. Reed. I had suspected that his blog was the source of the insulting little boys who decided to come my way. And yes, I discovered that he posted a blog where he purports to reveal my name, and he links to a cyberstalking site that was put up when a group of thugs could not run me off from their little sandbox on Usenet.

Oh well... such is life when you stand up to bullies. At least, as far as I know, he has not tried anything as sinister as Mr. Sandeen's bout of cyberstalking.

For what it is worth, the information that he accessed is about 85% total fabrication, with the remaining 15% so badly distorted that it might as well be made up. I actually get a bit of a laugh reading how terrible my life is, while knowing that quite the opposite is true. But like Mr. Williams, Mr. Reed prefers fantasy to truth.

I do find it amusing that those who, oh so often, whine about how horrible their lives are because they are discriminated against as transgender people seem to take delight in fictional accounts of others supposed suffering.

The simple bottom line is, when I created this blog I chose not to use my name. I am, in spite of what people claim, stealth. But, in a perfect example of what the transgender movement is all about, some have presumed to attempt to determine who I am, and to try to cause me harm, simply because I disagree with them.

Funny thing... I could do the same thing, but I choose not to. For example, it took me all of about a minute to determine "Autumn" Sandeen's birth name. Now, I know he is very protective of that information (though given his waving his male flag, I don't know why) and it would hurt him deeply to have that information revealed, but I have chosen not to do so. I prefer to deal with issues, not hurt people. Now, someone like Mr. Reed might not like having his maleness pointed out to him, but it really is central to the issues involved.

"Cristan" WIlliams, king of the wild transgenders, has set his most recent sites on Ashley Love, who is intensely hated by the transgender extremist kooks because she, like myself, refuses to join their cult. In his typical style, he does exactly what he accuses others of doing, and in doing so, he provides the evidence he claims they lack.

Ashely said:

We simply do not want to be appropriated and treated like a voiceless colony.We protest the way the truth is being disregarded and censored in this social engineered and problematic "transgender umbrella-ism reservation ideology" mandate that feels more like people with transsxualism being kidnapped and misused than voluntary consent.

No, we will not shut up and be assaulted like this.

We will strike back if we have to

Now, if Mr. Williams was remotely truthful in his claims, his response would simply be, "Fine." But he intends to do exactly what Ashley objects to. He is focused on forcing her into the "transgender cult," or at the very least shouting her down. His view seems to be, "Silly woman, get back in your place! I know what is best for you!"

In his reply, he uses his usual straw man approach:

Answer the following 4 questions:1. When did transgender become an umbrella term?2. When did transsexual stop being an umbrella term?3. Exactly how many decades has transgender referenced the transsexual experience?4. Where did the term come from and does it mean today what it meant then?You know how I know you don’t actually know any of this? Because A.) you wouldn’t have made this post to begin with had you known the answers to these questions; B.) you wouldn’t be thinking about deleting this comment for the crime of challenging your reality; and, C.) you’ve never once back[ed] up anything you assert with any objective fact.So, while I know you’ll delete this comment, I’m going to at least answer the above questions so that you can no longer claim the excuse of ignorance…

Now, you have to remember that Mr. Williams imagines himself the successor to his hero "Hitch,"Christopher Hitchens, who died last year. Now, while at best, Mr. Williams is a poor imitation, he does have some of the more obnoxious traits down pat.Now, the above questions are, of course, somewhat dishonest. They are too vague and lacking in context, which allows Mr. Williams to distort the facts, and create his fantasies, which he then tries to claim as reality.For example, he claims that "transgender" became an umbrella term in 1974. This, of course, is based on the fact that a few people among the transvestite crowd might have used it that way, on a few isolated occasions. A better question would be "When did transgender come to be commonly used as an umbrella term. The answer there would be during the Nineties, which is when the attempt first began to force people into a common social political construct. Prior to that, the Internet was not available, and thus such an effort would have been impossible.His next question, "When did transsexual stop being an umbrella term, again falls back on the fact that it might have been used in isolated incidents in such a manner. At the crux of his argument is the "Benjamin Scale," which dates to the 1960's. Of course, the fact that it never really caught on among those in the field is ignored by Mr. Williams. Transsexual was commonly used to refer to those who were seriously seeking surgery, while the rest were classified as "transvestites." Actually, the more common "umbrella term" at that time was "sexual pervert." Now, if we actually apply Mr. Williams' logic, we should continue to use such terminology, though I imagine Mr. Williams would be howling that we have moved past such hateful and judgmental language and that he will never accept being labeled as such (though in a sense, that is exactly what he strives to be. He does seem to take great delight in being at odds with societal norms.

The third question, again, is lacking in context. Mr. Williams bases his arguments on isolated usage, that never reached any degree of acceptance at the time, of course ignoring other usages that are inconvenient. For example, the first medical journal article discussing Christine Jorgensen's case (she was not mentioned by name of course) referred to her as a "transvestite." So, based on Mr. Williams' logic, "transvestite" should be the universal, umbrella term, since it was applied to both those who know expect to be called "crossdressers" and those who are properly referred to as transsexuals. Of course, "transvestite" is largely considered an insult these days. Funny, why do they get to determine what they are called, but transsexuals are denied this right?

And finally, with the fourth question, Mr. Williams just leaves reality behind. Keep in mind, while he tries to imply that the term "transgender" was widely used for decades, the fact is, the term was, at best, obscure, and more accurate archaic during that time. Even if his questionable citations are accurate, the usage was not remotely widespread. One has to remember, that there was a tendency during these times for transvestites like Arnold Lowman, who used the names "Charles Prince," and "Virginia Prince" to regularly try to introduce new terms to replace "transvestite" which they felt was too associated with "perversion." So, I have no doubt that "transgender" popped up occasionally, along with others like "bi-gendered," "femmephile," and others.

No, the bottom line is this, Mr. Williams is the living embodiment of what Ashley Love is referring to.

As to his "challenge" to Love, who he hopes to bait into arguing with him, I would remind him, I don't shy away from challenges, even from bullies like him. When I took him on, he was reduced to throwing ad hominems, which is, of course, the last bastion of a loser.

Monday, April 9, 2012

Well, I see that the extremely confused, and often confusing Suzan Cooke has again noticed that I don't share certain views with her, and has again chosen to attack me. As I said in the title, I take it as a compliment that she is upset at something I said. Cooke is someone who cannot seem to make her mind just how cozy she wants to be with the transgender. I suspect she knows she has burned off a lot of what good will she had with the transsexual community with her rather shrill diatribes touting her leftist politics and her overblown ego that make her a legend in her own mind.

Let me state, categorically, and without question, Suzan Cooke is the last person I would ever want to jump on the "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" bandwagon. Granted, she did early on, but her ego just would not let her own term, "Women Born Transsexual," be replaced by something else. So, she turned on people who might have, at least on certain specific issues, agree with her.

Since her blog, which I consider a never ending source of humor, began, she had swung periodically between "transsexual separatist" and "transgender." In Cooke's case, her lefty side wants to join with the transgender kooks in their rebellion. Her transsexual side pulls her back. It is sort of fun to watch.

I used to be a member of Cooke's mailing list until I made a suggestion that did not meet with her approval. Then her partner, Tina, took a dislike to me, and well, it was not pretty. Something akin to the purging of transsexuals from feminist groups. I moved on, and very quickly realized that I had lost nothing except a few nasty people I did not need in my life.

Personally, I pity Cooke. There are some powerful demons in her life. I know she has a history of substance abuse, and she clearly is deeply insecure. Another blogger once did some research and chose not to publish what she found. She feared it would push Cooke over the edge, and I suspect she was right.

Now, I see that Cooke has teamed up with "Natalie" Reed, who like Cooke, is a rather hateful atheist. I long ago observed that some atheists seem to have reached some intellectual conclusion that there is no God. I disagree, but most of them are capable of being decent and congenial folk who only mention their lack of belief if it comes up naturally in a conversation. They do not feel the need to shout in people's faces, usually as profanely as possible, "I hate God, and refuse to believe in Him!!!" Yes, that is basically their belief. They are angry, usually because some human said or did something that hurt them, and they have come to blame God for that slight. They shake their fist in God's face, and say I hate You, and the worst thing I can do is not believe in You.

All that can really be said for such a person is, God is patient and will welcome them back if they ever feel the need. In the meantime, the only thing is to pity them, perhaps have a guilty laugh at their expense, and to pray for them.

In the meantime, it is nice to know that Cooke still obsesses over me from time to time. But hey, it is the least I can offer given all the laughs I have at her expense. Oh, and I would remind Cooke, she is always welcome to come and argue here. Cooke is a big believer in the vilest forms of censorship. Within limits, primarily mine and others privacy, I allow pretty much anyone to come here and make an ass of themselves.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Every once in a while, I come across some random blog that proves to be an excellent example of what is wrong with the "transgender" extremists. I found an excellent example from some kook who calls himself "Natalie" Reed. In what he presents as a sort of "April Fool's Joke" he attacks the concept of "Harry Benjamin Syndrome," which, as is typical, he knows nothing about.

Mr. Reed, it seems, is another gender fascist wannabe.

His article, which starts with a rather nasty portrayal of what he apparently believes those who support the HBS concept to be like, then turns into a rant against people who, gosh darn it, just can't see that they have to be gender rebels like him.

First off, in spite of what he thinks HBS people are like, the first thing he needs to realize is that we are not part of his beloved "trans community." Then he launches into this clueless bit of screed:

For all we’ve been through, trans people are not necessarily above falling into the same binary or hierarchical attitudes about gender common to our culture, nor does finding oneself on the receiving end of cissexism necessarily cause someone to immediately divest themselves of all the cisnormative ideas that have been drilled into them over the course of their lives. Deciding to transition doesn’t magically or instantly cause someone to let go of things like gender binarism, genital essentialism, misogyny, transphobia, the confusion of gender expression and role with gender identity, heteronormativity and heterosexism, the idea of sexuality and gender having a deterministic relationship to one another, the idea that gender and sex have a deterministic relationship to one another, or the one million and one ways that any given concept, object, characteristic or behaviour is gendered one way or the other.

I sort of, kind, imagine that Mr. Reed would expect, and more likely vehemently demand that his views be respected, and yet, he seems to presume that there is some requirement that anyone who is transsexual must somehow think like he does. Sorry, but I happen to believe in the gender binary, that having a penis does make you a male, and that wishing to keep it does make you a man. On the other hand, I think that men in dresses like Mr. Reed are the misogynistic ones, and they often turn out to be very homophobic since they cannot let go of their heterosexuality. Further they think that gender expression is the equivalent of gender identity, and that gender identity is all that really matters (i.e. say you are a woman, and magically you are...at least until you say you are a man again). While I have gay and lesbian friends, i also have enough sense to recognize that heterosexuality is the norm (that simply means that it happens far more often than not, not that it is "better") and that yes, sex and gender NORMALLY are in sync, and further, that for people where they are not in sync (unlike someone who CHOOSES to rebel against their true gender) that person is healthier and happier when they are brought into sync.

In short, I think that Mr. Reed, and all the other transgender kooks are, well kooks. He rejects the idea that transsexualism (or HBS) has any legitimate basis, apparently thinking, as so many do, that it really is, "just a lifestyle choice." Of course, things like crossdressing are just choices, or more specifically, fetishes, though give enough time, they do grow into lifestyle choices.

Oh well, more and more, I try to ignore fools like this, but sometimes you just have to say something. If he wants to be a gender rebel, that is certainly his right. But it is my right to have a good laugh at his expense, to consider him to be a kook, and to certainly oppose his attempts to undermine the very fabric of our society.

In a move that is reminiscent of George W. Bush's appearing on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to declare "Mission Accomplished," Mr. Williams has effectively declare victory. Now, granted, in response to one comment, in one of his classic straw arguments, he asserts that he never said he had "won." Yes, and Bush did not say the war was "over." Uh huh, yeah....

Mr. Williams asserts that he has shown a series of memes, i.e. straw arguments he has created, have been refuted. Actually, all he has done is try to bury the truth under an avalanche of fuzzy claims, and questionable citations. For example, he tries to claim that Christine Jorgensen "identified" as a transgender woman based on a questionable citation that includes an isolated quote she once made. I have yet to see that she said it more than once, if then. And certainly it is highly unlikely that she identified with the word as it is now used.

In fact, this brings up another of his straw arguments. He claims that transsexuals claim that "transgender" did not exist until the mid-Ninties, and that it was invented by a bunch of crossdressers. Now, some may have come to understand the facts in that manner, but what Williams says is, again, a straw argument that hides the truth. It is not clear how early the first use of "transgender" or some variant of that term first occurred. That is certainly not helped by Mr. Williams rather odd collections of alleged citations. Funny how they always come from obscure and difficult to locate sources. This of course leads to the highly dishonest practice by him of demanding that people prove a negative. This, of course, is a classic dodge used by any number of scoundrels.

In truth, it doesn't matter. Even if all of Mr. Williams claims are true, they would make zero difference in the debate, since the fact remains that the transgender movement as it now exists, and the one that many do not wish to be associated or identified with, did begin in the mid-Nineties, and it was invented by a group of crossdressers. The evidence for this really is overwhelming. The only evidence for Mr. Williams claims are some vague incidents where someone might have used transgender, though not in the sense that it is now used.

Mr. Williams wants everyone to pretend that language never changes, unless of course such a change supports his position.

As to the claim that the transsexual separatist movement actually being dead, well he really offers nothing to actually back that up. Granted, he did post this story on April Fool's Day, so maybe he thinks it a clever joke. Or maybe he was just tired of getting zero comments on his blog, as he certainly opened a hornet's nest. No, his entire argument is based on that series of memes he claims to have busted:

The colonization of transsexuals meme

This, of course is exactly what he is engaged in.

The transgender was an invention of the 1990s meme

As pointed out, "The transgender" (sic) might not be an invention of the 1990s, but the moder transgender movement clearly is.

The transgender was coined by Virginia Prince meme

Arnold Lowman, who called himself Charles "Virginia" Prince, is credited with inventing the phrase "transgenderal" perhaps coined and certainly popularized the term "transgenderist" and was a major leader of the overall movement that the modern transgender movement grew out of. BTW, exactly this argument has been made by more than one scholar. Whether it is true or not is largely a matter of perspective.

The transgender came from transgenderist meme

What is with this "The transgender" silliness. The first one I could see as a typo, but the continued use is just bizarre. Are we talking about "community," "movement," "silliness?" What? In any case, in a very real sense, it did come out of a group that, for a while, identified as transgenderist.

The transgender originally meant crossdresser meme

I don't know of anyone who claims this. Up until the 1990s it was a rarely used term, and largely meant nothing. Thus, a straw argument....

The there was no trans community before the 1990s meme

This is another of his classic straw arguments. Were there support groups and and communication between groups of transsexuals. and between groups of transvestites? Yes. Was there the "transgender community" that Mr. Williams attempts to force people into against their will? Not remotely. Another straw argument.

The as long a transgender exists, progress can’t be made meme

And yet another straw argument. Progress has been made in spite of the attempts of transgender extremists, but they do make things difficult, and in some cases impossible. Further, what Mr. Williams, and others. like to gloss over, is the problem of what transgender extremists want. What he calls progress, I would call a nightmare.

The before the 1990s, transsexuals lived a problem-free life meme

This has to be one of the most pitiful attempts to create a straw argument I have ever seen. I don't know anyone who could claim this. At least not anyone who is transsexual.

The umbrella terms were an invention of the 1990s meme

Actually, the transgender movement as we know it was born of the idea of transgender as an umbrella term. Certainly, before the 1990s some tended to associate transgender and transsexual, though nothing like the current movement's gender fascists do today.

The transgender was invented by a Commie in the 1990s meme

As I understand it, one of the leaders of the movement has, at least in the past, identified as Communist. Another straw man argument.

The there’s no such thing as a non-op transsexual meme

Ah, a semantical straw argument. Since the term "transsexual" clearly refers to someone changing sex, and since the only way to change one's sex is to have surgery, then there are no non-op transsexuals...just delusional people who claim they are non-op transsexuals. Of course, Mr. Williams bases this on out-dated information that was written in 1966 and which has been abandoned long ago. Oh, and that information came from Harry Benjamin, who he usually seems quite fond of trashing anyway

And he ends his list of grand, but none existent "bustings" with, of course, another straw argument. The issue is not that "transgender" people will be a threat to women in restrooms. The argument is that the way the transgender movement insists that laws be written would result in males, including ones who are not even transgender, being able to enter women's space by simply claiming, if only momentarily, that they identify as female. That doespresent a very real danger, and that is what most, including myself, oppose.

Well, once again, Mr. Williams lies, obfuscates, and generally makes silly arguments in an attempt to claim some small amount of victory where none remotely exists.

Suffice to say, those who want no part of "transgender" are alive, and healthy.

About Me

Copyright Notice

All original content of this blog is copyright 2017 by J.U. and all rights are reserved.

Comment Policy

Just so there is no confusion, and to make sure that certain gender fascists cannot make false claims, I want to make clear my policy concerning comments. The only rule, and it is a hard and fast one, is "NO INVASIONS OF PRIVACY!" That is, if you post information about me, such as my name, or other private information, your post will not see the light of day. After having a couple of rather nasty trolls try to get around this, I have had to do something I really dislike. Because Blogger does not allow me to block individuals, I now have to approve all comments. But, if your comment does not violate the one rule, it will be approved. So please, don't go running to someone and claim you were censored...especially someone with an established history of censoring posts to prevent actually having to defend his silliness...